Wednesday, November 28, 2018

There has been a lot of disquiet in recent days about how the mainstream media is effectively allying itself with the Tory party in either falsely claiming that the SNP want Scotland to remain in the Common Fisheries Policy, or that the SNP's opposition to the CFP is some sort of farcical sham. For the avoidance of doubt, SNP policy is that the CFP should be scrapped, or comprehensively reformed (which amounts to the same thing). But because the SNP aren't Brexiteers, this would have to be achieved by agreement with our European partners. It couldn't be done unilaterally.

"Unilaterally" is an interesting word, because it calls to mind the issue of nuclear disarmament. Thirty years ago, the Labour party abandoned the cause of unilateral nuclear disarmament, but insisted (as it still does today) that this didn't mean it wasn't still committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons. It just wanted to achieve that objective by multilateral means. In other words, the implementation of the policy depended on the agreement of other medium-sized nuclear powers such as France and China, in much the same way that the SNP's hopes of abolishing the CFP depend on the consent of our European partners. But, as you've probably noticed, the media have never seemed to find the concept of multilateral disarmament inherently ridiculous. So it seems more than a touch odd that journalists and TV presenters are inviting us to to accept that no political party can be regarded as truly opposing the CFP unless they want to scrap it unilaterally.

The irony is, of course, that Labour's support for nuclear disarmament is a sham in a way that the SNP's opposition to the CFP isn't. Labour are hiding behind multilateralism because it's too awkward to admit that they want to retain Trident, come what may, as a national status symbol. By contrast, nobody can seriously doubt that the SNP genuinely loathe the CFP and would make the case for reform as an independent Scottish government, however likely that might be to fall on deaf ears in other European capitals. And if journalists honestly believe, as they are forever telling us, that Nicola Sturgeon privately wants to kick Indyref 2 into the long grass and is therefore reconciled to Brexit occurring in some form, what would be so hard to understand about the SNP saying: "Withdrawal from the CFP is the one and only part of Brexit that would actually be in the Scottish national interest, so you'd damn well better at least deliver that if we're going to have to suffer the rest"?

A final point: someone quite reasonably asked in this blog's comments section the other day why journalists don't challenge the hypocrisy of Ruth Davidson, Theresa May and David Mundell, who all voted Remain in 2016, and therefore by their own standards (and by the media's standards) were all voting and campaigning for Scotland to remain within the "hated" CFP. Why did they support the CFP back then? Why have they changed their minds now? They can scarcely argue that the Tory government would have agitated for reform of the CFP in the event of a Remain vote. David Cameron had a golden chance to prioritise fishing in his pre-referendum renegotiation, but failed to do so.

* * *

Andrew Gilligan (he of Hutton Inquiry fame) claimed a couple of days ago that the Scottish Government had left its plans for gender self-identification open to legal challenge by changing its Twitter cover photo to the words "Dear transphobes, we have a phobia of your hatred. Yours, Scotland". This was clearly intended to coincide with the publication of the outcome of a consultation on self-ID, in which 60% of respondents were in favour of the proposal. I would be amazed if there is any prospect of a legal challenge succeeding, but I do think the timing of that change of cover photo was deeply ill-advised. Imagine how it must have made opponents of self-ID feel, especially if they participated in that consultation in good faith. One perfectly plausible interpretation was that the 40% who didn't support self-ID were being implicitly branded as transphobes. If so, the consultation was not a genuine listening exercise, but was instead a presentational stunt that always intended to make an example of ideological undesirables.

Where does this identity politics zealotry end? We've had the newly-elected SNP Equalities Convener openly use the dehumanising slur "TERF" against her ideological opponents on the self-ID issue, and express her generic distaste for the male gender. In years to come, will people who persist in opposing self-ID find themselves expelled from the SNP on the grounds of "transphobic hate-speech", in the same way that Grouse Beater has just been expelled on a highly questionable charge of anti-Semitism, having had his guilt prejudged weeks in advance by the aforementioned Equalities Convener? And if the SNP are ever foolish enough to go through with their relatively new policy of implementing the Nordic model on prostitution law in Scotland, thus defining certain types of consensual sex as "violence against women", will those who oppose the law be shunned by all right-thinking people as "enablers of violence"?

If you've ever wondered what Robespierre would have been like if he'd been an avid fan of A Thousand Flowers, we could be about to find out. Let's reinject a bit of common sense before we meet that ghastly fate. Let's debate those we disagree with, and not attempt to destroy them. Politics, not pulverisation.

83 comments:

The Big Three, May, Mundell and Davidson were remainers but kept a low profile. I suspect they were as shocked as you Nat sis when the final result was announced. However it is incumbent on May to negotiate with the EU and seek a deal although I reckon she or the next PM will call another referendum simply because Parliament will not allow a crash out. Those who voted leave have been treated with contempt by the majority in the Lords and Commons but they will be totally fooked if the people again vote to leave.

As I've been saying, the boot's on the unionist foot now. DUP and Moray fishermen are feeling 'deeply betrayed'.

And the unionist division is only going to get worse as England formally hands over Scots fisheries and N. Ireland to secure itself a trade deal down the line. We're just on the exit agreement right now. Mundell will be resigning every few weeks when we get to the formal sell out / trade negotiations. Trump's already mentally closing down distilleries so he can sell 'Scotch' from Tennessee.

Well, it's the 'not staying in the EU' bit that will make Scotland worse off - and Ireland to a similar amount, according to the LSE.

One question that we will need to tackle if there's another independence campaign is how much becoming independent will make us worse off, relative to not becoming independent. Unfortunately even though we can ignore that, the other side definitely wont ignore it.

I have to say I find those questions extraordinary. Part of this ideology is that misgendering (ie. using descriptors about a person that they do not feel are accurate) is a form of hate-speech. So the first question you should be asking is whether "TERFs" actually consider themselves to be "TERFs". Do they? Nope, didn't think so. End of conversation.

I suspect if I constantly refused to engage with the content of your arguments, and instead tried to shut you down by saying "this is just more typical rubbish from a DAD" (ie. Dehumanising Acronym Deployer) that might just possibly begin to annoy you after a while.

Slur: "a remark that criticizes someone and is likely to have a harmful effect on their reputation" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/slur).

Is it a slur simply to describe someone's politics accurately?

Or is your disagreement not with the meaning of the words but simply with the fact that 'TERF' is an acronym? Perhaps the tone of using a form of shorthand is the problem here but in that case should we also ban 'Nat' and 'Yoon' among so many others?

But, I do agree that no-one should use the acronym as a means of avoiding engagement with the views of another. Not everyone who uses it in such a way does (I was at an event in Dublin recently at which a young trans person gave an impassioned defence of the right to self-identify which fully engaged with opposing arguments which had been presented).

That is absolutely bizarre, Niall. You've provided a dictionary definition of "slur" that fits the usage of "TERF" perfectly. It is used as an insult. It is used to deny the validity of the views of those being insulted. It is used to damage their reputations.

And yet you then go off on a tangent as if the definition you've just provided doesn't matter. You claim that the term TERF "describes someone's politics accurately". As you know perfectly well, because you are not a fool (although you seem hellbent on pretending to be), people who are branded "TERFs" take the opposite view and claim that it is a mischaracterisation. There is, therefore, no consensus on the term's accuracy. On the 'misgendering' principle that people have the right to define themselves and not be defined by others, it is profoundly disrespectful to call people by a name they reject and find insulting. And even leaving aside the misgendering principle, it's just plain bad manners to indulge in childish name-calling.

As you know, I don't call people "Yoons", but feel free to take that point up with those who do.

Frankly, I'm disappointed and bewildered to see you write such an impassioned post in favour of verbal abuse.

Start with 'Radical Feminist'. The reference is to a strand of feminism that came to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s which believes that women are an oppressed class, oppressed by men for being women. In contrast to socialist feminists, who understand the oppression of women as having its roots in the operation of capitalism (and before that, private property and inheritance), radical feminists believe that men's oppression of women (as sex objects, baby machines, domestic servants etc) is the oldest, and original form of oppression. They are often called 'second wave feminists' to distinguish them from the original first wave, who fought for womens' suffrage etc, and today's third-wave feminists, a younger generation who are more liberal and believe in individual choice (including the choice of your own pronoun, to choose to become trans and legally change your gender etc). Radical feminists are especially critical of sex-related practices such as prostitution and pornography, believing they are inherently exploitative. While some RFs practice their politics while having intimate relationships with men, the more 'hardcore' kind believe that politically aware and conscious women should separate from male society and have only relationships with each other, and thus exclude men from their lives as much as possible. All radfems see value in maintaining certain spaces exclusively for women, without male interference, like groups within political parties, academic institutions, support groups, womens' shelters, cultural events, campaign groups etc. They therefore object to allowing 'transwomen' (born as men) into such spaces because they believe that transwomen are both born as and socialised as men and cannot really be viewed as women. Their preference is that trans people be encouraged to remain with the body and identity they were born with. Hence 'Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist'

It's a little more nuanced than that. They do adopt the label 'radical feminist'. Many react poorly to 'TERF', it is true.

I think one can make credible arguments against allowing gender to be determined purely by the self-identification of individuals: but when reading the websites and writings of (to use their preferred term) 'gender-critical feminists' I am often taken aback by the tone and by the hatred which drips from the way they express their views about transwomen (transmen they seem to regard as merely confused and to be pitied), and by their wilful refusal to recognise gender dysphoria as a genuine problem: instead characterising it variously as purely a sexual fetish or as part of a political conspiracy to destroy women-only spaces. Being a biological male who identifies as being male, I don't personally have a dog in this fight, but I find it difficult to feel sympathy for people who argue in the manner and with the total lack of empathy that so many 'gender-critical' feminists do.

BTW they also hate the term 'cisgender' or 'cis', but since I too am cis I can use it with impunity ;)

Oh, for the love of God I never suggested for one moment they objected to "radical feminist". That's like saying people's objection to being called a national socialist is "nuanced" because they're totally cool with the socialist bit.

Disclaimer: I am a trans woman, so these people hate me and want to see me dead (not exaggerating). But I will do my best to take the moral high ground and not be biased. I also don't personally use the term TERF because I don't believe it to be helpful for rational discourse, but I completely understand why some people do.

"Radical Feminism" was the concept that there is no difference between male and female brains, and all the differences were due to socialisation and environmental factors. Transgender folks are the data-point that disproves that. Therefore anyone who claims to be a "Radical Feminist" is either working with flat-earther levels of denial, or is claiming that trans women aren't women and trans men aren't men. Hence they are "trans-exclusionary". Therefore the term is accurate.

However, is calling Tories "Evil Murderous Bastards" a slur? If it is, then TERF is a slur. Doesn't stop it being accurate.

---

Next, onto the general issue of Trans folks.

We've been abused, marginalised and tortured for a very long time. I am not exaggerating here. Before self-ID, trans folks were required to submit to torture before they could receive medical assistance. Imagine how you would feel if you were forced to run a marathon before you could get your broken leg fixed. That's the reality that a lot of trans folks have lived with. Actually, that's easier, because it's simple physical stuff - what they made transgender folks go through drives people to suicide.

Self-ID is a massive step towards saying "You've got a broken leg? Ok, we'll fix it first, no need to run a marathon to prove you need the leg to work".

The current proposals still require you to walk across the room to get your broken leg fixed, but at least it's progress in the right direction.

A lot of trans folks around the world live in fear of very real violence towards themselves. Remember the gay bashings? That's still the reality for a lot of us, and those who are identified (and called out as) as transphobes are the agitators and perpetrators.

Scotland is currently standing as a beacon in the night against this, and should be applauded for that. Calling the trans-haters on their bullshit is the first step in stopping it.

A simple way to tell if something is unacceptable hate-mongering is to substitute "Black" for "Trans" and see how you feel about the statement then. Same crap, different decade.

It strikes me that on the SNP front its importance is something linked to the past, to the last 30 odd years when the SNP was centred round fishing constituences. For the Conservative and Unionists it is pork barrel politics (sorry the pun) at its worst. Their position is not serious, but this time I think the present SNP policy must be reviewed. Only tinkering with the CFP will work.

My position is I support Scotland staying in the EU. As such I think we will have NO leverage to change the CFP in the future - let us be honest on that. Let us all admit that, and let's be grown up and admit the CFP is essentially sound.

The damage which was done to fishing communities goes back to the 50s, 60s and 70s and cannot be undone.

I would like to see some major Scottish politician have the guts to say the CFP is not so bad, ensures international cooperaiton and preserves fish stocks. So Spanish boats fish in 'Scottish' waters, so what!

GWC AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois of the 77th (Manky Shirt, Self Funded) Auxiliaries and its willingness to tell us entirely too much about its inner life.Poor, tormented, homophobic Cordelia.So much impotent rage.So very funny.

Huzzah! An article based, even if only partially, on one of my comments. Just as well you didn't use one of the sweary ones.

In other news. I saw from the mad US-funded anti-Russia troll fka Leasky that J Macennannenany is attacking those who defended GrouseBeater against his sham trial and expulsion. Egged on by some quine in a bad wig ( I hope it's a wig otherwise... Sheesh!) J Jones.

Serious question. Does anybody have any recollection of working with J Macennannannny back in 2012-2014 as he only seems to have risen to some sort of prominence post vote as an anti-SNP member of M Small's Bella posse.

I see net migration from the EU continues to collapse. 60% down in June 2018 compared to June 2016, with a forward projection to right now being ~80% down. Ties in with the mass exodus of EU workers being reported in official ONS figures; net emmigration of these already underway.

So, I think we can conclude the new tighter border controls are working. EU folks are not coming / leaving, just as brexiters desired!

Doesn't seem there's much need for a new visa system for EU folks though; there's just not the demand to justify the expense.

No, I don't know what you're talking about. Please go into more detail if you want me to engage with your argument. Otherwise I think it's fair to assume you're talking nonsense.

@ Anon:

And now you're just showing your ignorance. Untreated transgender folks have one of the highest suicide rates for any easily-treated medical condition. So it *IS* a life-or-death situation. And that's before we even get into violence against us - actual physical violence where people end up with broken bones and worse.

Please educate yourself before weighing into an issue you don't understand. We (rightly) make fun of Corbyn for doing that with Scotland. Don't let yourself fall into his mistakes on a different issue.

Leaving the ad hominems and the extraordinary claims aside, what evidence is there that a change in the law will fix the problem?And do you think this issue is worth risking Scottish independence over?

So Knickerless has decided to use the taxpayers money she has reserved for a referendum and spend it to relieve the NHS waiting list. Just received my long awaited appointment and it is on a Sunday! Knickerless and her clique can no doubt phone BUPA.

I wish I had voted to remain. I apologise to the clever people and politicians who will lose their useless jobs. I further apologise that they will have to sign on and maybe have to walk to a food bank and encounter smelly people.

I mean ye ken England's another country right, and it has 82% of Westminster MPs? Then we have the dude from the city of London corporation sitting in the corner of Westminster making sure said MPs look after city interests...

Not a joke. Do you want independence or do you want the EU to dictate the Scottish budget and spending. At present Scotland sets its own budget and spending. You probably do not know this as you live in NI or have you moved South?

What VAT and corporation tax did the Scottish government set? How much on a packet of fags and a litre of fuel? What about borrowing? Are they going for horrific austerity or spending driven growth? Has the world (UN) attacked them for choosing the former? What about nationalised railways like most European countries or fully privatised like the UK? How about oil? Any plans for an oil fund?

#ScottishBudget2017

GWC your world is falling apart. I'd kinda feel a bit sorry for you (as I do for pleasant, genuine heartfelt 'British') if you weren't such a fanny! If you want to save the UK, jist lyin oot yer erse aw the time will no get ye there. Unionists doing that is what's brought the union to the brink.

I cheered when Sturgeon was excluded from the proposed debate. Everyone who supports indy should. You want Scotland pushed out of the union right? Scotland pushed out of debates = Scotland pushed out of the union. This is union breakup 101 stuff. It's all happened so many times before in so many similar instances in the history of civilization. The result is always the same.

Most Scots 'self-id' nationally as Scottish not British, irrespective of their official citizenship. It's a deeply emotional and personal thing to them. Shit on it enough and they'll walk.

Does anyone know of any recent, relatively local, examples of where a country / state has ended or severely curtailed freedom of movement for its citizens as the UK is doing now?

I can only think of the USSR.

Do brits know their freedom of movement is about to be curtailed? I get the impression from polling and conversations that they don't. They same to think that will just apply to furriners. It's going to be a bit of a shock.

I should add that the central problem of the border in N. Ireland is the end to the free movement of people that a customs / trade border would bring. Cash, goods and services don't cross borders themselves; they're moved by people going about their daily lives.

If you put a border in N. Ireland, you restrict the free movement of people and interfere in their lives substantially, even if just in principle. That's what results in violence; an English government severely restricting the free movement of Irish people. It's back to the black and tans. It's naff all to do with the business admin of tariffs on steel and regs on meat production; it's only bean counters that really fret here.

This is why the border will be down the Irish sea where it's going to cause less of a problem as people are used to showing documents / being searched when boarding ferries and planes. That and the English nationalists are happy to dump the mick orange loyalists.

Simply getting past the brexit exit without losing Scotland is not sufficient. The UK is going to next need to sell heavily restricted movement to Scots along with the shrinking economy for many, many years to come. Good luck with that.

The UK is now officially saying to Scots 'Leaving the EU will severely damage your country economically and socially, including restricting your free-movement like the USSR used to do'. We're a long, long way from the heady unionist days of 2014 now, and it was pretty narrow at 55% then...

could you list the EU countries i can not move freely in? Am i about to be blocked from working & traveling in any EU country?

Irish people are not going to have their movement restricted in any shape or form. The CTA is still going to stand and all NI citizens can have dual Irish/UK citizen ship meaning that they can have free movement in the EU.

sounds fair, after all that's the rules that the EU subjects the vast majority of the worlds population. Why should someone from the UK have more rights than someone from America or Japan. Unless you think that people from the EU should have more rights than the rest of the world jut because of were they live.

Why should English people have the same right to live in Scotland as Scots? Do they own Scotland? Even 'blood and soil' Scots don't own Scotland. My wife is French - why should she have less right to live here than someone just because of an accident of birth?

I support global free movement (assuming all countries / peoples follows the same basic rules on trade human rights, democracy etc). The EU is a good start on that path.

If you think brits have some god given right to this bit of the earth as per your post, it's you that's parochial and insular, not me.

Anyway, we are discussing the UK government ending free movement in 27+ countries for British citizens. That's what Brexit does. Of course a by product of that is we'll see less furriners too, but your average joe will likely notice that a lot less than the freedom reduction the UK government is putting on them with brexit. They've just not really realised that's going to happen.

And note the EU doesn't have any immigration rules for non-EU citizens. Non-EU immigration is a matter for member states at a member state level. As part of the EU, the UK is free to let whoever it likes in from outside the EU, as can any member. It can be a 'global Britain', recruiting across the world without favoring any country right now. There is no 'queue' for EU citizens to 'jump'.

It would be useful to know what you are talking about before debating such matters. The fact that the PM doesn't seem to understand this basic factual stuff either shows how utterly fked the UK is. She seemed rather shocked the other day that, after making an end to European free movement for brits a 'red line', that European free movement for brits was going to end.

You seem to think that your French right has more of a right to live her, you don't think that she should need a visa to live and work her but think my American sister in law does very strange.

And the UK Government has passed no law, the EU counties are the ones that are now saying that UK citizens need visas to live and work, you clearly that is unfair of them, need to take that up with them.

No, I think your American sister should be to live here too if she likes. Which bit of 'I support global free movement' didn't you understand?

It's not me doing e.g. this:

---

Man, 90, faces being deported without his carer wife because he ‘isn’t ill enough’ to stay in UK Albert Dolbec is American, and needs constant care from his British wife, Dawn. Now the Home Office wants to deport him

---

Nope, the UK is withdrawing the right of its citizens to automatially be able to live and work in 27+ countries. I think we can agree that right now if we had free movement with other nations through similar agreements, these would be coming to and end also.

We might get lucky and some of the 27+ will still allow this movement. It's up to individual states (not the EU, which has no control here). However, the UK refusing to let their citizens come and live/work here freely isn't putting us in good stead.

Anyway, why end EU free movement anyway? Net EU migration is utterly collapsing and the number of workers from the EU is falling rapidly. There is net emigraton of EU workers now; the UK just isn't a desirable place to live and work. Why go to live where you are at best 'tolerated' because your skills can be exploited.

Man, 90, faces being deported without his carer wife because he ‘isn’t ill enough’ to stay in UK Albert Dolbec is American, and needs constant care from his British wife, Dawn. Now the Home Office wants to deport him

That very sad, but i could cherry pick stories like that from pretty much any country. No country is perfect.

And thats the problem, the nationaist movement just wants to highlight 'UK Bad'. You want my vote tell me why Indi Scotland will be better. What is the social care going to be like, pensions, schools, currency, international polices, the list goes on and on, and no one has an answer, till the Indy movement stops obsessing on UK bad to Scotland good, its never going to win over the Con/Lab/LD voters that it needs to get 51%

Erm, you've not been thinking this through again (which is a bit worrying). The policies you discuss would be those Scots vote for. You can't tell me what this will be for the UK more than a few months out. Will Corybn be PM for example?

At present, we get what England votes for most of the time. We can't even say that in devolved policy areas Scotland gets what it votes for, not now we have England saying it will simply overrule Scotland on agriculture, fisheries, food standards etc post brexit, taking control of these as it sees fit. So, we don't even really have devolved areas; not if the ultimate authority is England here.

I never said 'UK bad' on free movement. I simply stated the truth; the UK is withdrawing the right of brits to have automatic free movement to 27+ countries. For me that's bad. You seem to think it's a good thing, which makes it 'UK good' for you.

Anyway, we're going around in circles and it's silly to argue over and over on the same things. Have a nice evening! Genuinely.

I was very down after the iref. And brexit's a nightmare. However, the UK is crumbling before my eyes so there's light at the end of the tunnel. It's going to be a rough ride, but I did everything I could to avoid that (e.g. voting yes in 2014), so there's not a lot I can do but hold on tight.

A thought on the current farrago over the EBC revealing that Scotland is worth £200,000,000,000 of the UK GDP.

We know that kevin Hague occasionally haunts this site so just in case he's watching.

Current UK tax take is 34.4% of GDP. That equates to a value of £68,800.000.000 for Scotland to the english treasury. But wait! Last years GERS figures claimed that Scotland only contributed £60,000,000,000.

Nearly 9 Thousand Million Pounds just vanishing in a puff of smoke. Seems that someone is telling lies.

On the subject of lies. The same fraudulent tables only give Scotland £1,000,000,000 in total alcohol duties. Yet Scotland produces 90% of the UK spirits, thus generates 90% of the spirit duty. That works out as over £4,500,000,000 a year but we are only assigned a strict population share of £500,000,000.

That is £4,000,000,000 they're robbing from us every year while claiming we're bankrupt.

now calculate 34.4% of Scotland GDP and you will find that it comes out what was in GERS, no puff of smoke. As for Alchohol duty, that goes to the country the product was bought in not produced. Scotch sold in Scotland and Scotland gets the duty, Scotch sold in England, England gets the duty. Flip it around, English Cider sold in Scotland and the duty goes to Scotland not England and of course no duty is charged on exports.

Its not defending 'colonial masters' its knowing your facts before making claims that don't hold up ;)